FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/05/2015 7:58:12 AM PST by GIdget2004
The Supreme Court has set April 28 as the date for historic arguments on gay marriage.
The justices agreed in January to definitively answer whether the Constitution allows states to ban same-sex marriage. A ruling is expected by the end of the term in late June.
The court granted cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. It will decide whether states can refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and whether they can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court refused to review all of the lower court rulings that overturned gay marriage bans; they granted review only in the cases where the bans were upheld.
The Supreme Court refused to review all of the lower court rulings that overturned gay marriage bans; they granted review only in the cases where the bans were upheld.
“Courts have declared laws unconstitutional even when the Congress forbade it”
Reference, please.
Yes.
There are 15 states that legalized same-sex marriage either by popular vote or an act of the legislature, and another four states in which it was legalized by state courts relying on their state constitutions, so those states will continue to have same-sex marriage regardless of what the Supreme Court does. If the Supreme Court holds that there is no federal constitutional right to gay marriage (which they should, although I doubt they will), then existing bans in the remaining states can stay in effect. (In states where lower courts struck down the bans and those decisions weren't appealed, the legislature may possibly have to start over and pass a new ban.)
The ALABAMA supreme Court just told the inferior federal court to pound sand, using this from Judge Moore’s memorandum to the probate judges, Judge Moore then recused himself from this case and There IS NO GAY MARRIAGE in Alabama now.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies
The only way out seems to be to abolish marriage licenses in the State and let it revert BACK to the church where it was. Marriage licenses didn’t come in to play til the turn of the century so as to keep blacks from marrying whites.
I thought there was one regarding Gitmo detainees that the courts tossed out.
No, no, no, no NO!!!!
The supremacy clause (Article VI §2) says that the Federal Constitution "and all laws made in pursuance thereof" are supreme.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE LAW!!! And if there were, it would not be a law made "in pursuance [of the Constitution]", it would therefore not hold supremacy over state laws, and would have effect only in the District of Columbia.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Will a Supreme Court ruling leaving the marriage laws to the state also kill the court cases of “I’m gay-married in Massachusetts, give me a gay divorce in Texas and recognize gay marriage in the process”?
That's actually a second question, one involving the Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause. The Court may or may not reach that issue in the current cases-- I'm not sure if it's been raised. So that may remain open for future litigation.
Sorry to say, I have to disagree. I believe the fix is in. Your opinion would be the best outcome we could hope for at the moment. I hope with all my heart that you are correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.